In Jan, 2012 I wanted a puppy, so I sent the owner two hundred dollars. She wanted five hundred as a downpayment. Then I realized I could not afford the puppy... sent her an e-mail stating she could keep part of the two hundred and send me the rest. ...

Submitted by John Allen on

Jurisdiction: 

Area of Law: 

Question: 

In Jan, 2012 I wanted a puppy, so I sent the owner two hundred dollars. She wanted five hundred as a downpayment. Then I realized I could not afford the puppy... sent her an e-mail stating she could keep part of the two hundred and send me the rest. So the puppy was born afterwards on Jan 18, 2012. At my request she said at one point she was saving me the pick of the litter. However... I did not want the puppy bucause I knew I could not afford it. Time went on and I asked her to save me a puppy from THE SECOND litter. She said they were all sold, and she was going to keep the first puppy. About five minutes later another e-mail came from her stating she wanted to know when we could pick up the puppy! I was not ready for this at all! Awhile went by and my friend and I were able to send her another five hundred dollars. Okay... now with the second litter she had... the older pup was in her way, so she e-mailed when we could get the puppy. (at her convience) Went about sixty miles (called her first) and we waited for well over an hour outside before she would even answer the door! She said the night before, she would have everything typed up so we knew what shot the pup had and the whole nine yards. Well, finally after she answered the door, she did not have anything ready! She ended up writing a flimsy agreement on a piece of paper and she signed it and she requested me to sign it. AND wanted a copy of my drivers license! At this time I told her that money was tight and I did not know when I could pay the balance of $1,3025. but she said something like it was okay to take my time. NOW SHE WANTS TO TAKE ME TO COURT BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SENT HER ANYTHING and she claims the signing of the paper (without any witness) is legal. I've talked with her and she said today I can send monies. Oh, oh... I did not notice the rash on the pup or the large bump he has on his side WHEN SHE PUT HIM INTO MY ARMS. I wanted to get out of her house asap because of the ride I had waiting for me. Would you please help with my payment question and the dogs health prior to getinh him. Also my friend seems to be allergic to the dog so I will be forced to get rid of him. May I before he is paid for? Thank You!

Selected Answer: 

DakotaLegal's picture

 

Submitted by DakotaLegal on

 
This kind of case is actually pretty common…even though the fact of there being a puppy involved makes it a bit more difficult to settle ,without a lot of emotion. One reason I mention this is because some of what I’m going to suggest to you probably won’t go over very well with you…because it seems pretty likely a court will decide that you DO have several obligations, under either a contract or some legal rules of “unjust enrichment.” So, having a lawyer help you negotiate something reasonably fair to both sides, and to keep it out of court (with extra fees and costs), makes good sense for both of you.
 
At the same time, there are arguments you can make as to why there was no valid agreement. You seem to have little chance to really look at the puppy, for example. It’s unclear how the deposit was to be used. Be careful: you risk trying to look as though you had no duty to be cautious in buying the puppy. Avoid arguments about being in a hurry, or the allergy. If you argue to a judge, he or she will only want the basic question answered: did you or did you not work out the details of a sale? The other information is just “too much” information.
 
Try getting some low cost help to try and mediate this arrangement by contacting one of these groups: (a) Pennsylvania Legal Aid (http://www.palegalaid.net/) or (b) Pennsylvania mediation (try asking for low cost help from http://www.pamediation.org/ showtrainings.cfm).
 
At the same time, there’s plenty of blame to be shared here in terms of how this arrangement wasn’t reduced to paper or even a clear spoken agreement before your money (at least $700) and the breeder’s puppy were passed.
 
If she sues you…
 
then, as mentioned earlier, it makes sense to say there was no contract. The problem with this is that a court will have little sympathy for you just saying there was no contract. It’s just as likely that if there was no contract, then you could be sued for any alleged negligence to the puppy or something called “conversion” (meaning where you take a valuable property and keep it without paying anything). Here’s a case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1081272.html) where conversion happened to someone’s dogs. The case also shows the potential problems in setting a market value on dogs or puppies (which tends to hurt the breeder’s claim more than your’s).
 
Where you could be in trouble:
 
The better approach than saying there’s no contract (again, if you go to court) is to (a) establish there was a vagueness in your agreement, (b) that you paid a sufficient amount already ($700), (c) and that you have offered to return the dog to the breeder, so long as you receive some money back from the breeder.
 


  • The Value of the Puppy

 
I suggest you get a valid appraisal about the value of the pup. It really isn’t clear whether or not the puppy was worth the price she asked. The facts suggest she kind of “pushed” it on you, and that prevented your having an inspection.
 
The value of the puppy is relevant under almost any situation. If you want to negotiate, then you need a fair price. If you want to say there was no contract, then the breeder may say it’s not fair for you to simply “keep” the dog without paying a “fair” value (or a fair loss in value). If there was an implied or oral contract, then there needs to be some ascertainment about whether you paid an agreed and proper value.
 
Your case is also stronger if you have a witness can testify to the uncertainty involved in deciding which dog (litter one or two) was being purchased. Testimony about the health of the dog could come from a veterinarian.
 
You also have a reason to contact the Better Business Bureau, if the breeder wants to try and bring you into court (http://pittsburgh.bbb.org/). This approach may well help steer this away from court.

All Comments

DakotaLegal's picture

 

Submitted by DakotaLegal on

 
This kind of case is actually pretty common…even though the fact of there being a puppy involved makes it a bit more difficult to settle ,without a lot of emotion. One reason I mention this is because some of what I’m going to suggest to you probably won’t go over very well with you…because it seems pretty likely a court will decide that you DO have several obligations, under either a contract or some legal rules of “unjust enrichment.” So, having a lawyer help you negotiate something reasonably fair to both sides, and to keep it out of court (with extra fees and costs), makes good sense for both of you.
 
At the same time, there are arguments you can make as to why there was no valid agreement. You seem to have little chance to really look at the puppy, for example. It’s unclear how the deposit was to be used. Be careful: you risk trying to look as though you had no duty to be cautious in buying the puppy. Avoid arguments about being in a hurry, or the allergy. If you argue to a judge, he or she will only want the basic question answered: did you or did you not work out the details of a sale? The other information is just “too much” information.
 
Try getting some low cost help to try and mediate this arrangement by contacting one of these groups: (a) Pennsylvania Legal Aid (http://www.palegalaid.net/) or (b) Pennsylvania mediation (try asking for low cost help from http://www.pamediation.org/ showtrainings.cfm).
 
At the same time, there’s plenty of blame to be shared here in terms of how this arrangement wasn’t reduced to paper or even a clear spoken agreement before your money (at least $700) and the breeder’s puppy were passed.
 
If she sues you…
 
then, as mentioned earlier, it makes sense to say there was no contract. The problem with this is that a court will have little sympathy for you just saying there was no contract. It’s just as likely that if there was no contract, then you could be sued for any alleged negligence to the puppy or something called “conversion” (meaning where you take a valuable property and keep it without paying anything). Here’s a case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1081272.html) where conversion happened to someone’s dogs. The case also shows the potential problems in setting a market value on dogs or puppies (which tends to hurt the breeder’s claim more than your’s).
 
Where you could be in trouble:
 
The better approach than saying there’s no contract (again, if you go to court) is to (a) establish there was a vagueness in your agreement, (b) that you paid a sufficient amount already ($700), (c) and that you have offered to return the dog to the breeder, so long as you receive some money back from the breeder.
 


  • The Value of the Puppy

 
I suggest you get a valid appraisal about the value of the pup. It really isn’t clear whether or not the puppy was worth the price she asked. The facts suggest she kind of “pushed” it on you, and that prevented your having an inspection.
 
The value of the puppy is relevant under almost any situation. If you want to negotiate, then you need a fair price. If you want to say there was no contract, then the breeder may say it’s not fair for you to simply “keep” the dog without paying a “fair” value (or a fair loss in value). If there was an implied or oral contract, then there needs to be some ascertainment about whether you paid an agreed and proper value.
 
Your case is also stronger if you have a witness can testify to the uncertainty involved in deciding which dog (litter one or two) was being purchased. Testimony about the health of the dog could come from a veterinarian.
 
You also have a reason to contact the Better Business Bureau, if the breeder wants to try and bring you into court (http://pittsburgh.bbb.org/). This approach may well help steer this away from court.